Here is Habets commenting on TF Torrance’s view of carnal union and spiritual union with Christ:
Utilizing the language of the Scottish divine John Craig, Torrance distinguishes between Christ’s ‘carnal union’ with humanity from his ‘spiritual union.’ Our carnal union with Christ refers to the union between Christ and humanity through his incarnation. He was made man for us that he might die for us, and so there is a carnal union established between Christ and all of humanity. Our spiritual union with Christ refers to the fact that the Holy Spirit unites the believer with Christ so that the benefits of Christ may be ours. It is important that the carnal union and the spiritual union are not separate but rather, spiritual union is a sharing in the one and only union between God and humanity wrought out in Jesus Christ. (Myk Habets, “The Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism: T. F. Torrance as a Case Study,” Irish Theological Quarterly 73 [2008] 338.
This is how Torrance could speak of ‘universal atonement’ (UA) as a necessary corollary of the “Incarnation;” and yet not ‘universal salvation’ (US). UA is the ‘objective’ plank, and in fact the reality and ground by which all of humanity is now oriented to God. The ‘spiritual union’ is the subjective side that is only realized for those who respond to God’s convicting work by the Holy Spirit.
This distinction is different from Westminster Calvinism, which limits Christ’s union with humanity to a certain group of humanity — the elect (thus leaving it open to a charge of Nestorianism). Carnal/Spiritual union allows for a way to speak about election and reprobation in meaningful ways, which are grounded in Christ. In fact, it is this basis which makes this form of Calvinism, Evangelical. All of humanity is represented by Christ, and thus all of humanity is accountable to His ‘salvation’ or His ‘wrath’. Scholastic Calvinism does not place Christ at the center in this way, their basis for God’s wrath, then, is seen outside of Christ — not within. This is a problem, amongst others . . .
Hi Bobby,You state "UA is the 'objective' plank, and in fact the reality and ground by which all of humanity is now oriented to God. The 'spiritual union' is the subjective side that is only realized for those who respond to God's convicting work by the Holy Spirit." How are you seeing the vicarious humanity of Christ at work here? It seems to me that this is really what begins to distinguish TFT from the scholastics, because it actually allows the human response to be human because it is already human in Christ. I think it is an important qualifier and key to TFT's thought here. Scott
Hey Scott. True, but remember that TFT uses 'objective' and 'subjective' in a distinct way, in order to highlight the vicarious humanity of Christ. So this is a good reminder. In my 'Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance,' pp42-43, I write:In a 1963 essay Torrance reminds us that:"God does not override man but recreates, reaffirms him and stands him up before himself as his dear child, and man does not seek to use or manipulate knowledge of God for the fulfilment of his own ends in self-will and self-understanding, but loves him objectively for his own sake and is so liberated from himself that he can love his neighbour objectively also." In order to speak accurately of theosis Torrance introduces the themes of objectivity and subjectivity. For Torrance theosis involves achieving creaturely objectivity as opposed to sinful subjectivity. True objectivity is secured only in the Spirit who unites the creature to the humanity of the incarnate Son. This is important, as it guards Torrance’s doctrine of theosis from any false view of the ‘divinization’ of humanity by any mechanical, naturalistic, evolutionary means. Participation in God is achieved by grace, by God alone. As Torrance maintains:"By coming into man the Holy Spirit opens him out for God. But at the very heart of this movement is the act of God in which he became man in order to take man’s place, and give man a place within the communion of the divine life. It is the act of the divine love taking the way of substitution, and opening up the way for a corresponding act on the part of man in which he renounces himself for God’s sake that the divine love may have its way with him in self-less objectivity" Further, in 'The Mediation of Christ,' pp.66-67 he writes:"In the Church of Christ all who are redeemed through the atoning union embodied in him are made to share in his resurrection and are incorporated into Christ by the power of his Holy Spirit as living members of his Body…Thus it may be said that the ‘objective’ union which we have with Christ through his incarnational assumption of our humanity into himself is ‘subjectively’ actualised in us through his indwelling Spirit, ‘we in Christ’ and ‘Christ in us’ thus complementing and interpenetrating each other."All of which was first acheived in the incarnate Son vicariously on our behalf.
Hi Scott,Welcome, and thanks for the response! Well let me just say, what Myk said ;-). Here is a quote from TFT's Incarnation:. . . what according to the gospel is the decision required of me? In the kerygma I am certainly challenged to make a decision, but the gospel announces to me that in Jesus Christ God has already taken a decision about me; it announces that my existence has already been invaded and brought under the sovereign rule of God’s grace in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ; it announces that the kingdom of God has overtaken me in Christ, and that my destiny has been laid hold of by Christ and determined by his crucifixion. Therefore the gospel challenges me to appropriate the decision which God has already made about me in Christ, it challenges me to cast my lot in with Christ and share in the history of Christ who has given himself in sacrifice to be my saviour. The kerygma certainly challenges me to take a decision, but that is a decision to appropriate and trust in a decision which God has already made about me in the life, death, and resurrection of the historical Jesus Christ. Thus the decision about which the New Testament gospel speaks has its whole focus and content in the decisive action of God in the historical Jesus — that is the objective reality of my decision in faith, and apart from that objective reality my so called decision simply rests in mid-air. (T. F. Torrance, “Incarnation,” 26)I think you're right, and I think his 'carnal'/'spiritual' unions most certainly must be understood through his thinking on the vicarious nature of Christ for us. This then would, as you note, be in contradistinction to the scholastics since Jesus' humanity becomes the nexus, by the Spirit, from whence 'our' humanity, incidentally, speaks out of His humanity; so that the spiritual union, realized by believers, is first grounded in His response ('Father into thy hands I commit my spirit', for example) for us. Any other way of framing, for TFT, would indeed be a 'decision' (in the instance of responding to God) left in 'mid-air'; which for my money is where the scholastics are (since they've grounded man's decision for God in 'created grace' — so Thomism).Myk,Thanks for sharing those quotes! I look forward to reading your book!!
I've often been intrigued by Heb 2:16 – it's the seed of *Abraham* that The Seed of Abraham lays hold of. It doesn't say He lays hold of 'the seed of Adam'. But of course Israel stands for the world in so many ways. And therefore Christ's assumption of Jewish flesh is a way of Him assuming the particular and the general in distinct but utterly united ways. Would this be another way of making the carnal / spiritual distinction? Christ is united to the seed of Adam (carnal) through being the Seed of Abraham and the Spirit calls the seed of Adam into fellowship with The Seed of Abraham to be themselves seed of Abraham (spiritual).you might have to read that a couple of times. And it probably still doesn't make sense. ;-)Glen
Glen,You've got me thinking. I think the seed of Abraham most certainly refers to the universal scope and intention of God's redemptive plan; which then would of course be grounded in the seed of Adam (or the seed of the woman Gen 3:15). Rom 5 certainly ties the Adam motif together in this way, so that "all" are represented by the second Adam (carnal union), but not all are united as children of Abraham (spiritual union) because they are 'devoid of the Spirit' (to borrow from Jude). I like the way you've brought this together, Glen.I think your point is very interesting, and probably fits quite well with TFT's points on mediation through Israel. I'm not sure if he ties it together like you are, but maybe he should've; what he has said certainly, I think, fits with what you're getting at, though.Thanks, Glen!
This is great. If I got this right, Israel as children of Abraham was elected as God's chosen people, and from which Christ entered humanity. But because of Israels rejection of Jesus Christ as the messiah, all mankind can now share in the carnal union of Christ. The Jewish rejection of Christ was required and planned to the benefit of all mankind as a whole. Because all mankind share in the carnal union with Christ, individually one can also have spiritual union with Christ through personal faith and repentance. Salvation requires both carnal and spiritual union with Christ.
Mike,Yes salvation does require both carnal and spiritual union. Actually I would want to say that Christ was God's chosen (elected) one; and Israel was the "medium" wherein His election broke into time/space (through His covenant relation with Israel). I would not want to say, then, that the 'carnal union' of all humanity was contingent upon the covenant unfaithfulness of the nation of Israel. Instead, that carnal union was only based upon God's free choice in Christ to become humanity out of His super-abundant life of love.I would say that the Jewish rejection (according to Rom 11) was sovereignly "planned" by God; but I would also maintain — based on what I was just sketching — that all of humanity was already "carnally united" to Christ by virtue of His prior election (logically speaking). So if anything, Israel's rejection becomes the occasion for the Gospel to spread beyond Jerusalem (but not w/o it), into Judea, Samaria, and then the uttermost parts of the world.Let me know if that makes sense.
To complete the clause . . . and then the uttermost parts of the world whereby the 'elect' in Christ (spiritually speaking now) become spiritually united by the Spirit 'in Christ'.
Bobby you wrote:”…carnal union was only based upon God's free choice in Christ to become humanity out of His super-abundant life of love.”Would you agree that spiritual union is only based upon Christ’ free choice in God to become the Savior? It would seem the implication of this would agree well with our previous perception on freed will.http://christthetruth.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/freed-will/ You also wrote:“…and then the uttermost parts of the world whereby the 'elect' in Christ (spiritually speaking now) become spiritually united by the Spirit 'in Christ'.”Wouldn’t the following agree much better with your understanding on UA:“…whereby the carnal elect might become spiritually elect in Christ through faith.”If I get too cumbersome just let me know and I'll sit quietly. 😉
Thanks for the clarification. I think I have a better grasp of Carnal/Spiritual union with your help.Mike
Kc,Yes, actually both, objectively speaking, carnal and spiritual union flow from the same grounding in Christ; spiritual union is only subjectivized per individuals by the Spirit's "wooing" (so to speak). This is what makes the reprobates rejection inexplicable, they are grounded in Chris't "election" 'for them' as much as those who are finally spiritually united — yet they follow the "First Adam's" response once again. The "double elect" (those who realize their carnal union spiritually in Christ).Kc, in the end, we are going to continue to disagree on this issue of "who" and "why" people respond. We can certainly try to leave it ambiguous, but Pelagianism just is not an option for me ;-).Could you clarify what you're gettinga at on the "UA" point. I think I understand; if the point is that everyone has libertarian "freedom," I just cannot agree with that. All indeed are "freed" in Christ, but those who participate in spiritual union do so because they are those 'chosen in Christ' to do so.Mike,I'm glad this is helpful!
Actually Kc,My most recent post addresses your questions more clearly.
Bobby,I’ll try to explain my reference to UA in this.You wrote: “…but those who participate in spiritual union do so because they are those 'chosen in Christ' to do so.”I find this opposed to your understanding on UA. This would have God’s plan and purpose be inconsistent objectively and subjectively. Given your statements above we would say that Christ atonement is for all but the Holy Spirit “woos” only some. Would it not be better to understand that God chose all who are born to be carnally united with Christ and He chose all who are born again to be spiritually united in Christ? I disagree that we will continue to disagree! Already we agree that Pelagianism is no option! 😉
Kc,I suppose what I meant, Kc, is the Holy Spirit only 'woos' in ways that result in spiritual union for some. I guess we could say that He 'woos' all (per Jn 16), but for some this results in 'spiritual union'; and others it results, inexplicably, in continued unbelief (stay in their sins — unbelief), per II Cor 2:15.Hope that helps clarify.I'm glad that we both agree on the Pelagian point, Kc ;-).Thanks for forcing me to be more clear!
Bobby I really appreciate your patience and your generosity toward me in this.I’m afraid I would still find the objective and subjective aspect of salvation inconsistent if Christ’ work is efficient for all yet the work of the Holy Spirit is efficient for only some.I’m glad we agree in our reading of John 16. I see this passage as clearly identifying the work of the Holy Spirit in the world (the Spirit ..say come). We may differ in our understanding of II Cor. 2:15 as I see this in reference to the work of the Church (… and the bride say come). I would still find God’s plan and purpose consistent here in that the through the preaching of the Word and the power of the Holy Spirit the “sweet aroma” of the knowledge of Christ in every place arises from both those who believe and those who believe not. So then it is not God who is inconsistent but men who are opposed to themselves in that some believe not. While I totally agree this is incredible I don’t find anywhere in the scripture where this is attributed to God’s choosing.
Kc,Inexplicable is key. And it is the theological principle of God making a choice for us that is trumping 'our' choice.The only alternative is semi-pelagianism, per its historical def.Off to church.In Christ
Kc,see my post on "Sola Grace," above this one.
Bobby I can appreciate your desire to move on but I consider this point as pivotal. To fail on this point is to fall back into the same circular arguments on election as with Classical Calvinism.I see my free choice to submit to the Gospel command to believe grounded in Christ free choice to submit to the will of the Father at the Cross. I perceive it was God’s choice to raise Christ from the dead just as it is His sovereign choice to save all who believe. I understand the historical usage of the term “semi-Pelagian” was to forego any rational argument and immediately cast doubt on any position other than theological Determinism. In the end I find it is only a misnomer akin to something like “semi-pregnant”. ;-)I will accept that I failed on this point but I will continue to study as always. 😉
Kc,Be sure, I'm not trying to "write you off," whatsoever. I never want to come across as patronizing (unless of course I'm talking to the Pyromaniacs, hehe, funny, funny ;-); I take your points seriously, because they are serious points.I think what I've not yet made clear about Evangelical Calvinism is that its primary concern orbits around a Doctrine of God — which then, of course has impact upon salvation, etc. Myk has a great (and very technical essay on this); which I will try to translate sometime in the future. Suffice it to say "Evangelical Calvinism" finds its theological orientation through Scotism (which probably means nothing to you at this point, maybe it does); while Classic C. finds its starting point in Thomism. By assertion, Thomism makes God's life contingent or predicated upon creation (e.g. through the decrees); Scotism places a premium on God's life of love as the touchstone wherein all of creation is predicated (i.e. God's life is completely "free" within His intratrinitarian life — not compelled by His creation, but instead by His love). This is what I need to develop further, and this is what Myk was getting at when he said in the past: 1. an EC believes in one divine decree (albeit in several parts).The kind of freedom you're speaking of, I think, derives from Thomism and Libertarian Free Agency, Kc (to be honest). The idea being, that if people don't have the ability to "autonomously" (albeit provided by grace) deliberately choose (A or B or C for that matter); then they aren't truly "free." But this smacks of exactly what semi-Pelagianism involves.Kc you said:I see my free choice to submit to the Gospel command to believe grounded in Christ free choice to submit to the will of the Father at the Cross.How would you differentiate this from prevenient grace that our Arminian brethren speak of? Because this is exactly what they say.Certainly semi-Pelagian can be used as a red herring; but that's not how I'm using it. It actually has teeth to it, and clearly is a trend of belief evinced time and again in the history of the church. Basically it means that man can cooperate with God in the process of their salvation. Evangelical Calvinism would want to insist that all man can do is respond to God. What I hear you saying, with awesome intentions, Kc, is that we have a "deliberate" choice in appropriating salvation; and what I would want to say is that we have a responsive choice — nevertheless a real choice, made by Christ first, as the necessary consequence of the incarnation and HIS spiritual union with the Father by the Spirit. The fact that all are included in this "choice" by Christ, and yet some reject it is the inexplicable part (so our logic finds a breaking point, and we're willing to live with some brokeness).Thank you for your patience, Kc; you're actually helping me out here, making me work, I hope I'm doing the same for you!In Christ
Bobby thanks again for your most gracious reply. I think you know full well that for me to study here is a very great labor, albeit one of love. ;-)I very much appreciate the EC perspective that ”God's life is completely "free" within His intratrinitarian life — not compelled by His creation, but instead by His love” and my questions and contentions here are primarily centered on the consistency of that great love.Let me say I would totally agree that all a man can do is respond to God. My contention is that God does not predestine a man’s response. I do not find the concept of free will taught anywhere in the scripture. Apart from Christ we are slaves to sin. We cannot even see the Truth, let alone receive Him. For a man to be saved the Holy Spirit must first reveal the Truth in Him. (Now that’s what I call wooing! 😉 God then commands him to obey the Gospel and believe His testimony. If he believes God then it is counted as righteousness to him and he is given new life in Christ. If he calls God a liar and believes not then he becomes reprobate and holds the Truth in unrighteousness.Bobby would say this understanding is even 1/16th Palagian? 😉
Kc,Let me just say it like this — there is so much more I want to say about predestination (how it is referring to God's life, and not "us" per se) and much more, but let me reserve that for further postings 😉 — I would just say that we know *why* those who choose "to obey the call of the Gospel," but we cannot explain *why those who reject* it do so (this is the inexplicable part). This is why it is important to hold carnal and spiritual union together; because we know that Jesus took a decision for us first, that we might vicariously participate in union with Him (hypostatic union). This is why the fact that all don't respond the right way, is inexplicable (this is where it must stop, the logic). There are certaily other steps that could be taken to try and fill in the "gaps" with this logic; but this is not the method we want to follow (instead we want to follow what is and say Yes and No, not try to infer beyond what is given in Christ).Look forward to continuing to work through this, Kc!
Bobby stop teasing me! ;-)Your language above is exactly what caused me to say that I was 90% on board so far. It fits almost exactly with my understanding (only I use incredible instead of inexplicable, more on that another time) but somehow I’m just not reading any form of theological Determinism in this.I look forward to more as well and again, thanks dear brother. 😉
Yes, we are very close, Kc. And you're right, there isn't any "theological determinism" embedded in the EC approach; which is wonderful!Thank you :-).
Pingback: My Un-Finished Confession | The Evangelical Calvinist